Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Star Trek

While I won't be revealing anything that I would categorize as a "spoiler," I will vaguely refer to certain plot points. If you're one of those people, like myself, that prefer going into a movie completely fresh, you may want to avoid reading this until after you see it.

Last weekend I went to see Star Trek, and as expected, I really enjoyed the film. Actually, it was one of the best movies I've seen since The Dark Knight. While I only ranked it at number three back when I posted my Top Ten Cases entry regarding the movies I'm most looking forward to, this is the first of the films on the list that I've actually gone out of my way to see. When they were released, I felt somewhat indifferent to Wolverine and Terminator, and ultimately realized I'd be just as content waiting for it to come out on DVD (although I did end up seeing Wolverine, but only because it was for free). But Star Trek was something I really wanted to see in the theater.

While I've always been partial to The Next Generation, I must admit that the rebellious nature of Captain Kirk makes him a far more alluring character to center a prequel behind. And overall, I was really pleased with the film, and would certainly recommend it to anybody who is a fan of the franchise. Of course, what makes this movie great is the fact that it appeals to those who haven't followed the series, but I do think the average Trekkie/Trekker (two nicknames I detest....the former is demeaning, the latter is pretentious) will approve of this exciting reimagining. The overall look and design of the film improved, but stayed consistent with, what we saw in the original series.

I think the strongest aspect of the film is that the actors wisely decided to play the characters in their own vision. For example, Chris Pine wasn't playing William Shatner playing Captain Kirk. He was simply playing Captain Kirk, and in my opinion he did a phenomenal job. I was never a huge Kirk fan (like I said, I grew up watching The Next Generation), but after seeing this movie, I completely understand why the character has such a huge following. If you knew him, he'd be that guy who's impossible to hate, even though you really want to. He has the nerve to casually sit in the prestigious Captain's chair when the ACTUAL Captain is right there on the bridge. But then he backs it up by coming up with a brilliant plan. A brilliant plan that works. Following this film, I have absolutely no problem comparing Captain Kirk to Han Solo. The movie also featured several clever "wink, wink" moments that, thankfully, weren't over the top.

The movie wasn't perfect, though. This may surprise many, but I actually thought Zachary Quinto's Spock the most disappointing portrayal. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the fact that I've grown tired of seeing the internal struggle of Quinto's Sylar, but I really didn't want to watch Spock's difficulty in relating to his human side. The reason Kirk was such a highlight in this film was because we got the cocky, confident, charismatic character the series was built upon. By contrast, I feel like the Spock everybody clamored for was virtually absent. Additionally, I didn't completely buy the "surprise" relationship revealed about halfway through the episode (although the facial expression was another character made the discovery made it all worthwhile). I'm also torn on the repercussions of the central plot. On the one hand, I appreciate the fact that the sequels won't be tied down by events that we know will have to transpire (and it was also neat seeing how one event led to Spock being Captain, and Kirk being First Officer), but on the other hand I feel a bit robbed: Does this mean that everything we've watched for the past four decades now doesn't happen? Or happens in a completely different fashion? I also fall into the category of people who found the lens flare distracting at times.

Nevertheless, this movie is highly recommended, and I think people who view it as a "Star Trek movie" are doing it a disservice. It's not my review style to assign grades, but if I were, I'd say this is a solid B+

2 comments:

Kyle Litke said...

It's an alternate timeline I believe. Everything else still happened in the "alternate, non new movie universe". Future movies will be in a different continuity but everything else still happened in the "real" one.

Matt Basilo said...

Well, an alternate universe is a bit more acceptable, but it still leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. That being said, it was probably a necessary evil....that way, the future movies aren't tied down by the events we know will happen.

Interesting, though, that this movie and Lost practice such a seemingly drastic difference in opinion regarding time travel.